Form can definitely be more powerful than content much of the time. Calling out a standardized presentation form doesn't devalue the content of all those who use that form though, you'd still have to address the actual content of the speech that was linked, or this is just another attempt at using fallacious logic to muddy the waters.

It's not about music at all. It's about gluten consumption. Consumption of grains has disrupted the natural human inner ecosystem which has resulted in our incrementally increasing pitch upward to adjust for the imbalances. This has led to increased allergies and the dependence on pharmaceutical remedies. Big pharma is hugely invested in maintaining A at 440 cps. If we were to return to our paleo diet and to 432 tuning, the drug companies would soon go out of business.

It's not about music at all. It's about gluten consumption. Consumption of grains has disrupted the natural human inner ecosystem which has resulted in our incrementally increasing pitch upward to adjust for the imbalances. This has led to increased allergies and the dependence on pharmaceutical remedies. Big pharma is hugely invested in maintaining A at 440 cps. If we were to return to our paleo diet and to 432 tuning, the drug companies would soon go out of business.

Because it's not an objective measurement. "More natural reference" is a statement that fails the analysis. Natural to a singer is a variable unique to every singer, and is a variable again to every instrumentalist. It's not some "law of the natural world" like gravity.

To simplify it... a lower tuning reference makes it EASIER to sing for every Soprano. You'd probably find less bass vocalists who agree.

Plus... they are singers. In every class I've ever taken or taught at university, vocal majors (opera singers) were some of the least competent students with the greatest complaints about everything. Point is invalid just because you reference singers IMO.

It's not about music at all. It's about gluten consumption. Consumption of grains has disrupted the natural human inner ecosystem which has resulted in our incrementally increasing pitch upward to adjust for the imbalances. This has led to increased allergies and the dependence on pharmaceutical remedies. Big pharma is hugely invested in maintaining A at 440 cps. If we were to return to our paleo diet and to 432 tuning, the drug companies would soon go out of business.

This is why the Chipmunks were huge in the heavy grain-consumption regions. Of course. It all makes so much sense, now. You know, once you know. You know?

Come to think of it, my decision to drop-tune all my guitars came not long after I started cutting back on grains.

There's nothing lazy about the fingerwork of some of those Hawaiians. They were listening to stuff like Django and the Playboys on the one hand and pushing the evolution of their own homegrown traditions on the other. And then there's the hula girls. (Maybe one part of the story is in the hands...)

Assuming this is actually true, it could also mean vocalists like it "a little bit lower in comparison." Relativity rather than absolute.

The historical evidence suggests that the original reference was lower and was raised in the interest of fixed-tuned instrument ensembles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1

In which case as soon as everyone's adjusted to 432, they'll like 424 in side-by-sides.

No evidence for that; just an anecdotal preference for 432.
432 is a smidge under -32 cents (from 440); so not much room to go lower. I'd be interested to see a study of singers vs fixed-tuned players as to preference.

No, but it can be if required. I'm posting an observation based on anecdotal information and asking a question based on that.
An objective measurement would require playing tones and asking participants (singers/players) if they have a preference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderman

"More natural reference" is a statement that fails the analysis...

Which analysis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderman

...Natural to a singer is a variable unique to every singer, and is a variable again to every instrumentalist.

A natural reference will be the one that singers or instrument-tuners resort to in the absence of a universal reference. This might vary across geographic regions and cultures. The fact is that most singers (ideally) sing in 'culturally-relative pitch'; the characteristic differences between vocalists (to an intra-cultural audence) is mainly micro-timing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderman

It's not some "law of the natural world" like gravity.

Gravity is dependent on the mass of the bodies being affected. There's a big difference between physics and anthropology. In anthropology a distinction would be made between the relative natural reference tuning of different cultures; a major empirical tuning might be seen as hegemonic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderman

...To simplify it... a lower tuning reference makes it EASIER to sing for every Soprano. You'd probably find less bass vocalists who agree....

I was thinking this...interesting assumption. Another possibility is that (bass) musical composition and vocal capability (different larynxs favoured) would change with a change in reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderman

Plus... they are singers. In every class I've ever taken or taught at university, vocal majors (opera singers) were some of the least competent students with the greatest complaints about everything. Point is invalid just because you reference singers IMO.

So your saying the singers anecdotal preference for 432 is invalid - because they're singers?